Bridging the divide
Re “An American president,” editorial, Oct. 26
In recalling times when America was divided into the “patriotic” and the “un-American,” you neglected to include the one that started with the invasion of Iraq and has not ended yet. Those who were against the war were accused of being unpatriotic and of not supporting the troops. Flag symbols on autos and lapels no longer represented pure patriotism but signaled support for the war. That is when I removed my lapel pin and the small flag emblem from my car.
Those today who assign the “unpatriotic” label or divide us into pro-American and anti-American -- “with us or against us”-- are finding fertile ground first tilled at the start of the Iraq war.
Bette Balliet
Mission Viejo
--
I hope the message of your editorial reaches beyond Southern California and is emulated in the editorial pages of newspapers throughout the country.
Americans are a diverse people. We are not a nation of red states and blue states, a nation of liberals and conservatives. We are the United States.
When I was 17 and too young to vote, I felt strongly enough about the issues of the day that I campaigned for presidential candidate George McGovern. I canvassed the streets and engaged my neighbors in a dialogue that allowed us all to voice our beliefs. It was a humbling experience and an expression of patriotism by everyone involved. It was a kind of education the classroom cannot provide.
Americans should be free to speak and vote as they see fit without politicians like Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann questioning their patriotism. Americans soon will have the opportunity to express themselves on the issues and the manner in which they have been presented. Whatever the outcome, we must respect the decisions of the day and work together to help heal the problems -- and divisions -- of our nation.
Amy Litton
Costa Mesa
--
The editorial has the right underlying spirit. But, once more, in favoring one side, you sacrifice journalistic integrity to achieve desired ends.
You failed to remind us of Michelle Obama’s statement that she had never been proud of her country until sometime in 2008. I suggest that what she really meant to say was that she had never been more proud of her country because of its willingness to support a black presidential candidate of a major party.
Obama’s statement is comparable to Palin’s use of the term “pro-American” -- and neither should be denounced at the almost McCarthyite level that The Times’ editorial so subtly invokes.
Sins of omission undermine your credibility. When you invoke McCarthy, please remember that the Big Lie also can be generated by ignoring truth for the sake of convenience.
David G. Miller
Rancho Palos Verdes